1 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 2026:CGHC:1606-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1265 of 2017 [Arising out of judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2014 by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.]  Ravi Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Pardeshi Prajapati, aged about 19 years, Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Laingarampur Basti, Police Station Passan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh through the Incharge, Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board (12.01.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2016 passed by the ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2026.01.13 17:01:54 +0530 2 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2014 by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of 1,000/-; in default of ₹ payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months; Section 366 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of 2,000/-; in default of ₹ payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months; Section 376(1) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of 3,000/-; in default of ₹ payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months; Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) Imprisonment for life with fine of ₹5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story:- 2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 26.09.2013 between 12:00 noon to 5:00 pm, at 3 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 village Pasaan, Police Station Pasaan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, the appellant abducted minor victim (PW-2) from lawful custody of her guardian and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes knowing fully well the fact that the victim is a minor girl and belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. Mother (PW-3) reported the matter to the police on 30.09.2013 pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/7. Victim was recovered from the house of her mother vide Ex.P/4. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. As per the caste certificate (Ex.P/9A-C), victim belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Namita Walter (PW-6) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/6. In the victim’s report (Ex.P/6), no external injuries were found over the body of the victim, however, it was opined by doctor (PW-6), sexual intercourse was done with the victim and with regard to age determination the doctor referred for ossification test. As per victim’s X-Ray report (Ex.P/9) proved by Dr. P. Verma (PW-5), she was more than 18 years at the time of incident. However, as per dakhil khariz register (Ex.P/10C), victim’s date of birth is 1.078.1997, meaning thereby, at the time of incident age of the victim was 16 year. Slides of the victim were prepared and sent for chemical analysis to FSL along with other 4 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 seized articles, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness, but exhibited 1 document. 5. The learned Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission:- 6. Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would also submit that the age of the victim has 5 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date and time of offence as according to X-Ray report (Ex.P/9) proved by Dr. P. Verma (PW-5), the age of the victim was more than 18 years at the time of offence and furthermore, Mr. Deepak Ekka (PW-7), Assistant Teacher, is not the author of dakhil kharij (Ex.P/20-C) and he also does not know on what basis the entry was made. He would further submit that the victim (PW-2) was a consenting party and her statement (PW-2) is not of “sterling quality” in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1 followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2 . Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principles of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would also submit that in the medical report (Ex.P/6) has supported the case 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21 2 (2020) 3 SCC 443 6 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 of the prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. Discussion & Analysis:- 9. Age of the victim:- The trial Court has held the age of the victim was less than 18 years at the time of offence relying upon the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/10C) proved by Deepak Ekka (PW-7). However, Deepak Ekka (PW-7) has not supported the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/10C) as in the cross examination he has categorically stated that he has not made any entry in the register and he does not know on what basis such entry was made. As such, the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/10-C) is of no use to the prosecution. Even otherwise, as per the X-Ray report (Ex.P/9) proved by Dr. P. Verma (PW-5) the age of the victim more than 18 years on the date and time of the incident. As such, the trial Court has wrongly held that the age of the victim was less than 18 years on the date and time of offence to base the conviction of the appellant and we hereby set aside the finding of the Special Court 7 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 that the victim was less than 18 years of age on the date and time of offence. 10.Medical Evidence:- The victim (PW-02) was medically examined by Dr. Namita Walter (PW-06), who prepared the medical report of the victim vide Ex.P/6 in which though it was opined by doctor (PW-6), sexual intercourse was done with the victim, but no external injuries were found over the body of the victim and it is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party. Even otherwise, to corroborate the medical evidence against the appellant no forensic evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution though the slides of the victim were sent for the chemical analysis. 11.It is the case of the prosecution that the victim had allegedly been kidnapped by the appellant on 26.09.2013 and she was recovered on 09.10.2013. Victim (PW-2) in her Court’s statement has stated that the appellant had left her on her parental home after 8 days and meanwhile the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. However, in para 11 of her statement, she (PW-2) has stated that the appellant took her to the house of Sakhidai or Itwar Singh (PW-10) and she did not inform her about the appellant’s act committed by the appellant. She has further stated that when she reached to the house of Sakhidai other villagers were present and 8 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 though she met them, but she did not inform them also and not raised her voice to save herself. In para 12 of her statement, she has further stated that she used to go outside for taking bath and for other purpose also where she met with the many other people of the village, but she did not inform anyone about the incident and even at the time of sexual intercourse, she did not cry or ask for help of Sakhidai or Itwar Singh (PW-10) in whose house the appellant and the victim used to live. She has further stated that when she desired to go the house of her parents, the appellant left her to the house of her parents. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the statement of the victim (PW-2), we are of the considered opinion that statement of the victim is not of “sterling quality” and she is not a “sterling witness” as she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness” in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar (supra), and therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the statement of the victim (PW-2). 12.Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence as we have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the statement of the victim (PW-2) is not of “sterling quality” as 9 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. Further, the medical evidence is of no use to the prosecution as it is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party and also the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor at the relevant time of offence. As, the present is a case of consenting party, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted. As such, it would be absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for offences in question, and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Conclusion:- 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Special Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, they need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 10 CRA No. 1265 of 2017 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ankit